Rivkin

Answer deleted, it was supposed to be in a different thread.

O Sa learned how to produce Yamashiro styled work, and with this jigane the leap to his interpretation of Soshu was not that great a distance. Chogi is interesting because he made quite a few honest imitations. "Copy" of Norishige with matsukawa and long kinsuji. Copy of Hiromitsu or someone else very similar in hitatsura. Its not just learning one new style, the breadth of his work is exceptional from something that might be Mitsutada inspired to anything Soshu. Still I like Kencho a bit more... At his best, far less restrained. Much of Chogi's work is not something "taught". It bears image of someone purposefully playing with this or another interpretation and if Kiyomaro could do that by himself, Chogi did it with arguably greater resulting authenticity. Personally I would not put Kanemitsu and Chogi in one sentence with Soshu. The distance between their understanding of Soshu is vast and their approach is rather different, though typical "Soden-Bizen" hamon can be reminscent. With Kanemitsu people will cite like notare as one of the evidences of Soshu influence... which is telling in itself, he never produced a "true Soshu" work, Chogi did.

Its a long topic, so I will be short and rough: Most Hojo did become monks as it was custom to do so in old age or during thickness, but this had purely religious connotations. Temple association on the contrary did not involve living in a temple or doing daily shores - it was commercial patronage arrangement which dominated the economy from Heian to early Muromachi or about. Kunimune and Kuniyasu/Kunitsuna left very minor trace in Kamakura and are typically envoked to improve Masamune's pedigree with no real connection to any Soshu smiths. Ju tetsu never existed. There is no evidence of O-Sa or Chogi traveling to Kamakura, there is plenty of indirect evidence they did not. Starting with that when their style changed Kamakura was already irrelevant and almost impossible to reach. The influence of northern smiths coming south is better explanation compared to Masamune's legend. For example, since there are no works of Hasebe "preceding" his Soshu time (though they always did make suguha from time to time) its quite possible Hasebe were Kamakura smiths closely related to Hiromitsu (grandson's of Kunimitsu?) who migrated to Hasebe and worked there.

Don't know if I indeed specified the issue. My approach to Soshu and signatures is a quite a bit non-traditional. First, there is Bizen and basically everyone else. Bizen is mentioned in the earliest Japanese texts as province uniquely tasked to produce iron as tax, the only place where noticable portion of farmers had a duty to man tartara for part of the year and where ironwork and swordsmithing was a duty before the country's government rather than any local estate. Therefore you have very quick transition to signatures involving personal names, province, and overall significantly lower percentage of ubu but mumei production. Actually one exception I would cite are blades produced for trade with China which I argue were mostly ubu mumei, but its a long discussion. Most of province works are shipped elsewhere, more or less everything is signed. Yamashiro is a bit of an exception also because despite working in Kyoto, where other crafts remained temple/estate controlled till 18th century it retained much independence. It has connection to "Rai" and what this status enabled, but its another long discussion. Everyone else works in the name of one temple estate or another. Three reasons - being a "monk", non-withstanding how many times the government cracked down on married lay monks, was the major enabler of someone with humble roots automatically acquiring a status formally on par with senior members of Fujiwara clan. So most poets, calligraphers, painters of humble origin would become "monks". Second, Heian transition from government run economy was based on charitable dispensation of land income to temples with further conversion into semi-private estates and basically involved all production capacity which was now part of estates rather than standard tax-paying government land system. Essentially entire production economy is located on temple estates. Third, temples controlling income from most internal custom gates and trade venues, so until Muromachi even moving around without estate affiliation would be difficult. So Soshu is initially a temple estate school. i.e. Yamato and governed by more Yamato like conventions. Which means many craftsmen who work predominantly in datio (Go, Tametsugu, Kaneuji) and a significant portion of daito intended for estate own supplies which is ubu mumei. Taking into account that Etchu-Echizen, Kamakura and Bungo are only three general areas where you have plenty of warrior run estates even in Heian and possibly prevalence of those even prior to Mongol invasions its not surprising most of Soshu original smiths came from there. What was their standing - until 1340-1360 not too significant outside of warrior north. They had a lot of influence and dominance in Kamakura and Etchu but elsewhere it was still Bizen and mainline Yamato. 1360 is probably the peak of massive Soshu adaption everywhere, but at the same time no donations of Soshu blades to temples, no carrying by Shogun, no parts of gifts by Shogun or to Shogun... until when? When is the first record of Soshu blade given such honor? My guess its 1486 or so. Taking into account Ashikaga sword gift system peaked at a few thousand blades a year in 1410s.

A considerable portion of period's ubu blades are mumei. Strange for a tanto, but a tachi if the order was issued locally, never intended to enter the market, the order possibly given not to a specific smith but rather an estate - such items are very seldom signed worldwide.

Wow, I'll have to be a bit more arrogant than my usual. The theory that how detailed the sword signature is corresponds to how developed versus regional the markets are as far as I know have been introduced by me in "Study of the Eastern Sword". If there was an earlier citation, would be glad to hear. But... The problem of adapting printed theory: underlying details. There are plenty of Asian and to lesser extent Japanese books that consider the subject of sword making. They are however almost never cited, and the reason is that to most modern readers they would appear extremely bizarre. They are primarily concerned with magic rituals performed, how to divine the proper length of a sword, whether one needs to add gold... Spoiler - yes, premier sword should be added because it strengthens the blade and also makes inflicted wounds unhealable. There were however two things which people understood even in the 15th century. Some swordmiths names are better than others. Hence personal signatures as soon as the smiths were no longer essentially bonded property of estates. And that iron from certain areas should be used, from others - don't. Hence province names are very specifically mentioned. There is a theory that it was more important in places which used iron ore rather than sand since then you save on processing times but you have to deal with S, P versus Mn, Mb and Ni which creates more substantial variety. Which did not change the fact that provincial reputation of iron was substantially differentiated even as early as 6th to 10th century, almost everywhere. The dates are the most intriguing thing because a lot of sword cultures actually never have those. The ones that do tend to have smiths mentioned in text personally and the date confirms - this is such smith from this generation. To the point that famous generations tend to use dated signatures more often than average ones.

What I would be very much interested in is tracking the first time anything by Norishige, Yukimitsu and other smiths is referenced in a document. Except dating of many such documents is not entirely straightforward. Because judging by the impact of their work, both Norishige and Yukimitsu must have been extremely prolific and influential in their time.

An interesting piece. I think its circa 1530 and unfortunately such Soshu-inspired pieces in harsh nie tend to paper rather randomly. Fun fact, Tsunahiro or Shimada are not much of an option, lacking typical togari and with very harshly defined nie it is. You can always get Bungo or something much stranger, but in my opinion period roundish gunome with such nie is Mino Kanabo. Ofcourse there is an optimistic view, which would point towards Hojoji which sort of pioneered such style.

If I remember correctly it has papers to Senjuin if only because sugata is earlier and Taima is not used for earlier than end of Kamakura blades otherwise it would be a contender - tight itame, wide suguha-based hamon in nie.

I was wrong - from this angle definitely koshizori.

I suspect the modeling culprit is Soden Bizen circa 1360. Distinctive low sori toriizori, wide mihaba, extended kissaki.

I think the images are really good. Its most likely something from Edo period, or at least the very end of Muromachi - and those blades react very well to almost any direction of light. Old lenses also will work very well because much of the nuances associated with more modern designs are not efficient in the setup. Yes, the camera world moved away from DSLR if only because electronic viewfinders on things like Leica SL3 are nothing short of phenomenal. But Canon 5R and Nikon D850 present great value for their current prices and will not become obsolete.

I am honored by being asked such a fundamental question and will hedge the answer by claiming expertise strictly as a photographer. Drilling was already favored by some around Tensho and the first examples date exactly to 1551-1552.

An interesting question raised is whether the holes like this one did appear during Tembun. I think they did. Photo is from nihontoart. Close enough, possibly drilled etc.

Its a short, late Muromachi tanto. The work seems ok match to how Izumi craft is described in Meikan, though they also practised Mino-Soshu style quite often with which I am more familiar. The only thing that surprises me is the nakago. The point is not too sharp, but still without the signature I would give Kongobyoe some consideration, the work sort of matches it too. Still quite likely this is authentic Izumi Masakiyo from lets say Tembun or about.